Deleted member 897712
Ed Davey is opposed to Vaccine Passports. I can't make up my mind on it, some things seem logical like holidays abroad and festivals.
For international travel it is almost certainly going to be in effect, but I disagree with you on what the response of businesses will be. Cases and deaths are coming right down, vaccinations are going to keep deaths/hospitalisations down and people quickly become complacent. In that context I don't think it will make economic sense for most businesses to willingly choose to turn away paying customers.The problem will be if the private sector makes the decision. No business is going to want to be 'known' as a Covid hotspot, so if ROAR is in play, they may be within their rights to ask for proof, just like asking for ID to prove age. It's when that starts that the GOVT is probably going to have to step in to regulate. Whether they want to or not
For Travel, it's fair game. It's already a requirement for a lot of the planet, its just another box in the vax passport we have already with hep, acwy and something else in it that I forget (that I had, all expired now i would think)
That's the $240000 dollar question.What form will the passport take, will you be issued with an actual card?
You have to ask yourself what happens if the next one is Smallpox, Spanish Flu or Ebola.Problem is you then segment society after decades of bringing in legislation to absolutely prohibit such a thing, it's unavoidable regardless of what you and I think about risks antivaxxers create and raise in society. It's not the same as having to have a driving license or have a jab before working in a high risk area despite what the press has been pushing, those are choices and the licensing requirements are known in advance you must have a license to operate a vehicle, fly etc, you must have precautionary jabs before working with risky material (CDC, WHO etc) medical people should know and understand that. Here we're talking about discriminatory practices by definition.
It is, quite literally, a statement of being "unclean" and unfit to enter or use a facility or publicly available business or service. International travel is different, always has been and can easily be retrofitted for Covid vaccinations in the same way the 70's saw other requirements for booster or inoculations before travel.
Domestic restrictions would require either the suspension or amendment of discrimination legislation or will see places who demand such proof (as part of their existing right to refuse service) facing being dragged to court and attempting to prove an individual was refused entry on the grounds of risk - nearly impossible on a person by person basis.
The fact this government hasn't thought that through does not surprise me in the slightest, cf the pushback on CPS prosecution of Covid "laws".
So what of right to refuse entry which is, of course, held by all business premises?
Without for one moment dropping into the rights and wrongs of choices made by hotel, restaurant or pub and other business owners, how many such cases have been highlighted in the media on grounds of sexuality, religion or race over the past few years? A fair few - now imagine if people are refused a hotel stay or a restaurant meal because of a medical reason meaning they can't take the vaccine and their choice being to not go or being forced to medically prove that exposing their health records to a business.
If we want society to treat itself as non discriminatory it cannot tolerate "backdooring" any kind of societal grading or segregation, you simply can't allow discrimination based on vaccinations or testing. To do so, even flipping the process so you only need id if you haven't had a vaccine (e.g. those who cant tolerate one) is segregation and therefore discrimination.
Going down the road of discrimination by health for generally available services is not a good place to go. With the most angelic government ever (which this one is most definitely not) it opens the door to places other less scrupulous regimes later on may take it. It's also most likely going to fall foul to enforced medical procedures laws brought in to prevent WWII style medical atrocities, preventing people using services, buying food, going out without having a procedure or vaccination is, by definition, to force that procedure onto the public or to curtail their rights.
So I say again unless the government changes the law (which I very much doubt it has the nerve to try as it would surely fail) if left up to individual business this will lead to court cases on discrimination which they will most certainly lose.
It will also be the first thing those who rally against IDs (and indeed the very people this is about - Antivaxxers) will coordinate to attack. Business will end up paying the price for yet another poorly thought out scheme which will lead to them facing legitimate and targeted court case after court case as well as having to hire security to check and refuse entry.
International vaccination stamps, fine, they've been accepted for decades. Changing domestic law to prevent access to anything by medical proof, absolutely, definitely not.
Ultimately this is going to be about risk appetite, we won't reduce risk to zero regardless of the Chris Whittys' of the world. We can mitigate it, we can be responsible, where possible we can and should reduce our own risk exposure and reduce the risk we pose to others, that's it.
Ask yourself this, before Covid, before we all became aware of the risks of a previously ignored cough or sneeze around us, how many thought anything of going to a pub or cinema with a bad cold and not worrying of those in the auditorium or bar that may be immunosuppressed or susceptible to Flu etc. I'd hazard everyone here - or at least the majority, same as the number who went to work, on buses etc with flu rather than call in sick.
You have to ask yourself what happens if the next one is Smallpox, Spanish Flu or Ebola.
Do you think we currently have vaccination as a requirement for health workers (we don't).
If I'm infected by a health worker who has refused vaccination what then? Who do I sue?
Would your arguments be useful for countries that are combating yellow fever and the like?
I'm not too bothered about about vaccine passports for pubs, but believe anyone not vaccinating without good reason needs action taken against them where they put others at risk.
Just a point as someone who's had their first jab you do get a card saying what you had and when (in the case of the first one also when the second one is due).That's the $240000 dollar question.
Problem is, as it stands none of us can do anything but guess. Yes, it may be smartphone based, but unless the government are prepared for a sh!t storm of protest from those who will not use one it wont go well for them.
Really a two tier approach would be more sensible, with those who do not want a smartphone or do not trust them could be issued with a paper certificate. Again, both have their good and bad points, you just have to hope when they get issued the kinks are ironed out.....
Correct, ONS, PHE and Even Mr Whitty have said it multiple times. Vaccines do not stop asymptomatic carriers - arguably worse than symptomatic carriers who are easier to stop at entry or identify in society.The first question is what would such a passport be required for and where would it be valid and for how long. Thereafter it is who would it be issued to and how and what about those who can't be vaccinated for a valid reason or have not taken up the chance to be.
There is also the issue of being vaccinated doesn't afaik mean you can't contract the virus and pass it on.